RKSL Studios - WIP Discussion

[b00ce 160]

Myke;1879242']Mentoining hex-editing Rock's work in his own thread is...

I didn't think it would be an issue' date=' considering I was asking him for permission and some advise. (See his signature. ;) )

I'm no expert on modeling, but I thought hex editing only changed some values that allowed models to be re-textured/re-named without overwriting the original. I don't think it's possible to debinerize a model with a hex editor. (I think you're thinking of the .exe that shall not be named that was the cause of the great .pbo lock debate.)

I believe the next version should have the named selections sorted so that you can just use 'setobjecttexture' through the init line. Hence, Rock has been able to make these multi-national texture plugins.

I thought that he was making a whole new texture for those, that's how I would have done it. (But then again, I am the layman here.)

When I think of 'setobjecttexture', I think of the Squad XML stuff, where it's a little patch in specific spots and nowhere else. Which would kinda cut into my artistic freedom a bit. :p Perhaps I want to make some crazy camo scheme, or have something in a specific spot, that the area I could edit didn't cover.

I also want to be able to tailor load-outs to the unit's need. My init-fu isn't up to snuff and I think that it would be easier for me if I made a new config.

Like Gnat said I'd lay off it until then for Rock's sake, and the fact that it'll make the job much easier for you.

I was going to wait until the release start anything, if I got permission to, mostly because it would be kinda pointless to make a new skin and then have an update come out that could break things.

EDIT:

Now I feel a bit daft. :rolleyes:

Oh you rescued yourself with the "thank you" there :)

Hex editing is a no-no these days. There is absolutely no need if the addon is setup correctly.

I didn't know that. Ignorance isn't an excuse, but I figured it would have been O.k. if I got permission first and gave credit where it was due.

As Da12th correctly says the 1.4 version supports hidden selection texture swapping. Its setup as a core file with plugin pbos. So if you want only your own version all you need is the rksl-typhoon.pbo file and your own config and texture PBO.

That's Exactly what I wanted. Still kind of unclear as to how all that works, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, if I haven't burned it already.

We will be releasing a config and texture template with a short tutorial that shows you how to make your own skins and versions.

I'm also planning on writing a tut about creating your own loadouts since some people seem to struggle doing this in the editor.

Thank you for supporting your users and making life easy for us.

Edited March 22, 2011 by b00ce

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Harrier's looking frakking fantastic Rock.

[rksl-rock 1301]

...Now I feel a bit daft. :rolleyes:

I didn't know that. Ignorance isn't an excuse, but I figured it would have been O.k. if I got permission first and gave credit where it was due.

Don't. If you had asked I would have told you anyway. But like i said, for most addons you dont need to hex edit anything. Its just a matter of creating a new config and texture. Its far less hassle and doesnt screw up the original addon, cause version or signature issues. Its a better solution for everyone.

That's Exactly what I wanted. Still kind of unclear as to how all that works, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, if I haven't burned it already.

Well its pretty simple. You have 2 PBOs. One contains all the models. textures and scripts and the "base" config. So things like the HUD and MFD setup, all the user actions etc all the usual config stuff. But the scope is 'private'. So, on its own it doesnt appear in the editor.

The second PBO is the 'public' one. This contains only the things you need to change for your specifc version. So that wil be the:

• Faction
  
• Vehicle Class
  
• Display Name
  
• Texture
  
• Weapons & Ammo
  
• Script Inits
  

Like i said earlier we will be releasing template and a tut to explain how to do it. Its not hard.

Thank you for supporting your users and making life easy for us.

Contrary to popular BS rumour we do try ;)

[.Phoenix. 10]

Damn Rock those are some sweet updates, it's great you keep this up:cheers:

[dkraver 1]

Looking great and cant wait for the update.

Some questions about the weapons.

-Can see there is a LANTIRN pod (or atleast i think it is) on the first weapon pictures. So was wondering have you found a way to make it work so you as a pilot can make a target for your own GBU's??

-Have you made a gps targeting system for the Taurus KEPD 350 and if yes any chance that JDAM's will be added aswell??

-And last have you figured out a "radar system" for the AGM-88 HARM since they are added to the pack?

[rksl-rock 1301]

-Can see there is a LANTIRN pod (or atleast i think it is) on the first weapon pictures. So was wondering have you found a way to make it work so you as a pilot can make a target for your own GBU's??

It's a Litening III pod. Yes we have but it won't be in this version. Its a variant of the systems we're using on the Phase2 UAVs

UNN has worked his magic again and come up with a fantastic solution for both our manned and unmanned aircraft. Its still not 100% but we're, well UNN (all i'm doing is bouncing up and down on my seat asking "is it done yet?") is still working on it.

-Have you made a gps targeting system for the Taurus KEPD 350 and if yes any chance that JDAM's will be added aswell??

There are two systems involved in that question. Cruise missiles eg Storm Shadow, Taurus etc and Guided bombs. We have talked about solutions, and we have a plan but not much more than that. There are a number of weapons that need it so its definitely on the todo list.

JDAMs, well I haven't modelled them but it's not impossible. I am considering Myke's GPS/INS system as a short term solution until our UAV/Targeting system goes live.

But a little birdie tells me; in the real world at least, they won't work on the Typhoon anyway because the US won't allow EuroFighter access the source code needed. The SAAB Gripen has it but it seems someone in the US doesn't like EADS very much and is blocking it.

In the mean time I was just planning on making it behave much like the current Paveway 4 and have it able to target both IR and Laser sources.

-And last have you figured out a "radar system" for the AGM-88 HARM since they are added to the pack?

Yes and no. Yes, we've worked out how to do it. No we haven't actually done it yet. Just like the targeting and guidance for cruise missile its definitely on the to-do list since its a major feature of a lot of the SAM systems. I'd go so far as to say it's actually a large part of why they aren't already public.

We've had plans to do it since OFP times but its really only been practical recently. It was intended to be part of the FCSS shown some time ago. But due to time constraints, changes to the game engine and real life demands it didn't get properly looked at.

xVyuecoOJ0g

We've just not had the time to bring the FCSS up to ArmA2 standards. It needs re-writing for ArmA2 engine. The intention is there and it does have a place on the to-do list. But like everything else it takes time.

[wolfbite 8]

I was just thinking about your litening pod... And I'm not sure if it can be done irl but say you have a buddy flying aroung in his EF with it attached . Would an infantry unit with a console be able to patch in and see what the pod can see?

[rksl-rock 1301]

I was just thinking about your litening pod... And I'm not sure if it can be done irl but say you have a buddy flying aroung in his EF with it attached . Would an infantry unit with a console be able to patch in and see what the pod can see?

Real World - It can be done with the Litening III and a ROVER station.

Ingame - Not sure its possible in the current engine. If we had render to texture maybe it could. I'll have a think about it and ask UNN.

[hetsar 10]

I was just thinking about your litening pod... And I'm not sure if it can be done irl but say you have a buddy flying aroung in his EF with it attached . Would an infantry unit with a console be able to patch in and see what the pod can see?

That would be pretty cool in ArmA 2

[dkraver 1]

I remember the FCSS system video. Was something i was looking forward to but thought it had been dropped since there havent been any news about for a long time. The same goes for the cargo system.

Another question about the weapons just popper up. Have you had any progress with the ingame dynamic loadout system??

[Inkompetent 0]

Ingame - Not sure its possible in the current engine. If we had render to texture maybe it could. I'll have a think about it and ask UNN.

An attachTo-camera or camera otherwise following the aircraft ought to be possible, like a scripted 'spectator' mode, although I don't even want to imagine the delays in control input on that camera from the pilot, when it comes to the observer's (and thus another client's) end =/

[rksl-rock 1301]

I remember the FCSS system video. Was something i was looking forward to but thought it had been dropped since there havent been any news about for a long time. The same goes for the cargo system.

Nah they are all still in the list but they shift priority. And as usual time and motivation is an issue. You have to remember we really are only two guys. We are both self employed and neither UNN or I have as much free time now as we did a few years ago.

If I win the lottery or could afford to "employ" Gary to do RKSL stuff full time I would. But until then we are all just trying to do what we can in the little time we have.

Another question about the weapons just popper up. Have you had any progress with the in-game dynamic loadout system??

Its in the list :D

It's another really "nice to have". We've discussed it I think we even went so far as to start prototyping it for ArmA1 then ArmA2 came along and changed the way weapons were handled. After that it never got picked up again. But, in the mean time If anyone else (Myke and IAWS?) comes up with a practical community friendly MP solution we may use it.

An attachTo-camera or camera otherwise following the aircraft ought to be possible, like a scripted 'spectator' mode, although I don't even want to imagine the delays in control input on that camera from the pilot, when it comes to the observer's (and thus another client's) end =/

Maybe its better to say, 'it may not be practical?' I was thinking the main issue would be the "rubber banding" at speed in MP. It may work ok on slow moving UAVs or Helicopters but the speed issue would definitely crop up with jets. I'm sure there would be other issues but something like VBS's render to texture feature would simplify it. (although I dont know if they actually have the feature we're discussing.)

[Isola 10]

lol,are you seriously only in 2?

Damn only 2 and you make such a great piece of art!Yes the typhoon is beyond a simple technical work.

[b00ce 160]

Thanks for the info, Rock. I can't wait for... Everything, really. :p

[da12thMonkey 1943]

But a little birdie tells me; in the real world at least, they won't work on the Typhoon anyway because the US won't allow EuroFighter access the source code needed. The SAAB Gripen has it but it seems someone in the US doesn't like EADS very much and is blocking it.

Would that affect the integration of the GPS/INS mode for Paveway IV on the RAF's Typhoons or have we dodged the bullet by going for Raytheon instead of Boeing's UK-JDAM kit?

Sent you an email btw. ;)

[rksl-rock 1301]

Would that affect the integration of the GPS/INS mode for Paveway IV on the RAF's Typhoons or have we dodged the bullet by going for Raytheon instead of Boeing's UK-JDAM kit?

Sent you an email btw.

Apparently it's a different coding subset. The Paveway IV uses a UK designed and coded package by the way.

From what I was told it's some of the JDAM's advanced targeting and networking capabilities that are causing the issues. E.g. passing off target coords to other aircraft on the fly directly to the seeker etc. Something Paveway IV can't do. It has to be input manually by the delivering aircraft. There are all sorts of features that the US government is embargoing.

The Gripen apparently uses an independent "black box" that plugs into the main computer so get around the source code issues. Something that I think the Typhoon can't support.

I'm sure EADS will catch up but for the moment the US is reluctant to hand over the code to a non US company.

Email received, and I'm writing a reply right now.

[Smurf 12]

Just passing by to say that I was happy while looking the new Typhoon textures, features and weapons until the Harrier.... man, thats breath taking. Kudos for all that.

[joey_45 0]

AWESOME Rock/UNN, just plane AWESOME..

[STALKERGB 6]

just plane AWESOME

Was that an intentional pun? :)

The new textures look really great, loving the HUD you been working on!

[dkraver 1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkraver

Another question about the weapons just popper up. Have you had any progress with the in-game dynamic loadout system??

It's another really "nice to have". We've discussed it I think we even went so far as to start prototyping it for ArmA1 then ArmA2 came along and changed the way weapons were handled. After that it never got picked up again. But, in the mean time If anyone else (Myke and IAWS?) comes up with a practical community friendly MP solution we may use it.

Cant remember you answer but i once asked about the system used on the F18 in Arma 1. What was the problem with that system?

[[frl]myke 14]

Cant remember you answer but i once asked about the system used on the F18 in Arma 1. What was the problem with that system?

Although back in ArmA 1 and the possibilites the engine had back then (which means: limitations) this was just a piece of genius, the the actual RV engine it is pure contrary to flexibility.

Back in ArmA 1, a plane or chopper could have exactly one type of proxy weapon (missile, bomb). If you added a magazine of 2 GBU-12 and a magazine with 2 AIM-9X, on the plane you would have seen 4 GBU-12. Only when firing the weapons the correct weapon model was used.

Franze's F/A-18 used a workaround: all possible weapons were actually modelled on the plane. Some scripting and hide animations was used to hide the weapons shapes of weapons actually not loaded. So you were limited to what came with the plane, no way to load other weapons (like my Missilebox or RKSL's weapon pack).

But now in ArmA 2 the weapon proxy system has become way more flexible, allowing even non-weapons stuff attached to the plane "on the fly" like drobtanks, weapon racks and other equipment.

But this new flexibility also gives some (solvable, just a matter of time) problems like avoiding loading weapons where they shouldn't be loaded (Mk-84 on the Wingtips?) or respecting nationality of the weapons and planes (russian weapons on a F-16?).

There is nothing unsolvable afaik, it just need time for developing. So the goal is that one day you may park you plane beside a ammo truck, open a dialogue and select your loadout as you need it. You may chose weapons regardless if they were packed with the plane you're actually sitting in or from another addon (again Missilebox and/or RKSL Weapon pack).

[rksl-rock 1301]

...

Cant remember you answer but i once asked about the system used on the F18 in Arma 1. What was the problem with that system?

Myke beat me to it. As he said it wasnt really practical in this game engine.

[dkraver 1]

thx for the reply. Hope you can figure out something that will work

[Aerodude111 10]

Rock when will the Tornado GR.4 be out?

[kremator 1065]

1st of Julember.